Often, we tend to hold a poor view of politicians. With Parliament stalled at the drop of a hat, our misgivings about Parliamentarians and the Parliamentary systems of democracy deepen. A closer study, however, will reveal how misconceived our views are. Look at the way the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance sought to address ticklish issues in the corporate debt resolution process. Why should the resolution option be inflexible? Why should a resolution plan result in the disposal of the entire business and operations of corporate debt (CD) under a single plan? A combination of bidders taking different business units or assets could well be a superior solution. This could be better than a single bidder acquiring the entire business from a committee of creditors (CoC). The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), it appears, doesn’t facilitate multi-plan solutions for corporate debt resolution. The rules under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), however, do provide for flexible disposal of assets/business of CD to different bidders. But IBC appears to grant no such flexibility to CoC. While IBC is a Parliamentary statue, CIRP laws are subordinate legislations. Hence, the Parliamentary Committee has recommended changes to IBC so that a resolution is achieved by pursuing either of the means prescribed by CIRP rules. Indeed, Parliamentarians do a quiet job behind.